Cited by 173Muscle metabolism and nutritionNutrition, Health, and Society StudiesNutritional Studies and Diet

Optimizing Protein Intake in Adults: Interpretation and Application of the Recommended Dietary Allowance Compared with the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range

Open access
Wolfe, Robert R, Cifelli, Amy M, Kostas, Georgia, Kim, Il-Young·2017·Advances in Nutrition

Abstract

The adult RDA is defined as the average daily level of intake sufficient to meet the nutrient requirements of nearly all healthy people. The RDA for protein for adults ≥18 y of age (0.8 g/kg) has been essentially unchanged for >70 y. In practice, the RDA for protein was derived to estimate the minimum amount of protein that must be eaten to avoid a loss of body nitrogen. The Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range (AMDR) (10-35% of calories as protein) was developed to express dietary recommendations in the context of a complete diet. It is noteworthy that the lowest level of protein intake reflected in the AMDR is higher than that of the RDA. Furthermore, recent studies, particularly in older individuals, suggest specific health benefits at levels of protein intake that significantly exceed the RDA. Translation of protein intake recommendations for the general adult population into dietary guidance for individuals requires an understanding of the derivation and intended use of both the protein RDA and AMDR. The following discussion will describe limitations to the derivation and practical application of the RDA compared with the use of the AMDR to help maximize health benefits associated with higher protein intake by using flexible calories inherent in different dietary patterns.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3945/an.116.013821

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This recommendation falls within the Institute of Medicine's Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range (AMDR) of 10-35% protein.

    “Importantly, this recommendation also falls within the Institute of Medicine’s Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range (AMDR) of 10–35% protein [224].”

    From International Society of Sports Nutrition Position Stand: protein and exercise (2017) · cites this paper as [224]

    The Current Status of Knowledge section states that the Institute of Medicine’s AMDR is 10–35% of calories as protein. The cited sentence does not identify what “this recommendation” is, so our copy cannot establish whether that particular recommendation falls within the range. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The USDA protein recommendations are based on nitrogen balance studies determining the amount of protein intake required to maintain nitrogen balance, and it is unclear how much they can translate to actual clinical practice.

    “These recommendations are based on nitrogen balance studies determining the amount of protein intake required to maintain nitrogen balance and it is unclear how much they can translate to actual clinical practice [139].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Dietary Reference Intakes for energy, carbohydrates, fiber, fat, protein and amino acids (macronutrients). Washington (DC): The National Academies Press; 2002/2005.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolfe, R. R., Cifelli, A. M., Kostas, G., & Kim, I.-Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US)
  • National Cattlemen's Beef Association (US)
Corresponding author
Wolfe, Robert R
Venue
Advances in Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-03
Volume
8
Issue
2
Pages
266-275
ISSN
  • 2156-5376 (ISSN-L)
  • 2161-8313
OpenAlex
W2598699929
Cited by
173
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 4
FWCI
1.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Advances in Nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • PepsiCo
  • Purdue University
  • University of Missouri
  • National Pork Board
  • University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
  • Egg Nutrition Center
  • National Cattlemen's Beef Association
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (P30AG028718)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Nutrition, Health, and Society Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
Keywords
protein intake, RDA, Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Range, protein requirements, dietary recommendations, older adults, dietary habits
MeSH terms
Diet, Dietary Proteins, Humans, Nutrition Assessment, Recommended Dietary Allowances

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review